Changes Cookson has implemented at UCI

[Dear Wiggo]

It's troubling because no matter what his interaction with the team, he has no way of knowing from that interaction that they're doping. As such, to publicly state that he thinks a team with which he's so closely linked is not doping, looks very much like a conflict of interest.

He should steer well clear of commenting on Sky's cleanliness or lack thereof.

Agreed. It lends his opinion an air of favoritism, whereas he should remain as agnostic and at arm's length at all times - imo.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

It's troubling because no matter what his interaction with the team, he has no way of knowing from that interaction that they're doping. As such, to publicly state that he thinks a team with which he's so closely linked is not doping, looks very much like a conflict of interest.

He should steer well clear of commenting on Sky's cleanliness or lack thereof.

You are missing the point of what Cookson said. He is saying because of his interaction with Sky, in his opinion they are NOT doping. How could he conclude they are doping when based on his knowledge they are not. Your argument presupposes Sky is doping. What are your facts that they are and why would Cookson know this.

 

[thehog]

No doubt turning the topic of women's cycling into a Sky thread probably reinforces the point. Women's cycling is undervalued.

On that note an excellent documentary was made gestating from McQuaid comments: http://halftheroad.com - worth watching when it rolls around.

 

[EnacheV]

If in the past they got the random doper here and there but i have a strange feeling of silence now.

Bauke Mollema ‏@BaukeMollema Mar 12
Waiting to do my first UCI blood control of the year. Isn't that a bit late?

Combined with a string of weird results in the past months, which gives me a feeling of free for all time, i start to think it was better from anti-doping pov with Pat at the helm.

Seems Cookson already failed.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Seems Cookson already failed.

At this point, he's missed the opportunity to expose most of the fraud all at once, have the controversy explode, then pursue a cleaner, more transparent sport federation.

The commission seems like a McQuaid solution.

 

[Benotti69]

Moved by myself from USAC thread not to upset sensitive members...

Well, but this is the structure of the UCI though. It's a federation of federations that protects itself and reports to no one. Elections are very much a quid pro quo affair.

Don't expect too much from Cookson.

After Cookson allowing Sky to conduct their own investigation into their own rider over a WADA test anomaly one does not expect anything from Cookson re anti-doping.

 

[thehog]

Moved by myself from USAC thread not to upset sensitive members...



After Cookson allowing Sky to conduct their own investigation into their own rider over a WADA test anomaly one does not expect anything from Cookson re anti-doping.

Yes, it appears to be the case.

So much for the independent anti-doping body he planned to set up.

Words.

 

[BYOP88]

Yes, it appears to be the case.

So much for the independent anti-doping body he planned to set up.

Words.

May as well bring back Pat and Hein.

 

[thehog]

May as well bring back Pat and Hein.

Hein's acerbic manner and dealing with matters by the phone would be of great assistance.

Quick phone call to a Brailsford, cash payment agreed, Heano back racing.

 

[Race Radio]

Moved by myself from USAC thread not to upset sensitive members...



After Cookson allowing Sky to conduct their own investigation into their own rider over a WADA test anomaly one does not expect anything from Cookson re anti-doping.

Is this correct? It appears to have not been a WADA test but a UCI Biopassport test.

Have they clarified why/if the UCI passport software did not pick it up but Sky's review did? It would also be good to understand what exact parameters were triggered. It has to be more then just Hct

 

[DirtyWorks]

Yes, it appears to be the case.

So much for the independent anti-doping body he planned to set up.

Words.

Oh but Hog IT IS independent. It's still the UCI deciding what to do with results on a seemingly random basis. NOW they have new "independence."

It makes perfect sense....

 

[thehog]

Oh but Hog IT IS independent. It's still the UCI deciding what to do with results on a seemingly random basis. NOW they have new "independence."

It makes perfect sense....

Of course. It's an independent body control by the UCI

So when we say independent, we don't mean independent, we mean independent. Now someone get me a coffee and a beard trimmer.

 

[sniper]

cookson's compromised with regards to quite a few top teams.
sky (cookson jr.)
garmin (vaughters' pro-cookson PR + the millar > sky link)
BMC (sciandri/cummings)
Saxo (makarov/tinkov)

 

[Benotti69]

Is this correct? It appears to have not been a WADA test but a UCI Biopassport test.

Have they clarified why/if the UCI passport software did not pick it up but Sky's review did? It would also be good to understand what exact parameters were triggered. It has to be more then just Hct

Fran Millar has tweeted " the tests in questions are CADF ABP blood tests"..

So Sky are monitoring the riders tests, but how if they didn't test the blood but the Colombians did?

It also raises if teams are using better internal tests than UCI it will be easier to get riders on programs and manage their parameters/doping so UCI doesn't pick up any anomalies and riders dont test positive.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Is this correct? It appears to have not been a WADA test but a UCI Biopassport test.

Have they clarified why/if the UCI passport software did not pick it up but Sky's review did? It would also be good to understand what exact parameters were triggered. It has to be more then just Hct

I seem to recall athletes having access to their own data???

I need to re-read some WADA docs to be clear.

 

[Race Radio]

I seem to recall athletes having access to their own data???

I need to re-read some WADA docs to be clear.

Yes, riders can request their data.

WADA is not involved in this. The UCI runs the biopassport so this is a UCI test. Granted the sample collection is often taken by the local WADA signatory but the results management is done by the UCI.

For years the UCI would not even share their BioPassport testing results with WADA, but I understand that changed last year

 

[Race Radio]

Fran Millar has tweeted " the tests in questions are CADF ABP blood tests"..

So Sky are monitoring the riders tests, but how if they didn't test the blood but the Colombians did?

It also raises if teams are using better internal tests than UCI it will be easier to get riders on programs and manage their parameters/doping so UCI doesn't pick up any anomalies and riders dont test positive.

SKY got the results from the UCI......But why did these test not trigger a review by the panel? Odd

 

[Benotti69]

SKY got the results from the UCI......But why did these test not trigger a review by the panel? Odd

Yes it is odd, but, Pro Cycling is like sausage.................

 

[Beech Mtn]

SKY got the results from the UCI......But why did these test not trigger a review by the panel? Odd

It's my understanding that Sky alerted the UCI, not the other way 'round. If you go back and check Daniel Benson's twitter feed from the day the story broke, someone specifically asked Benson if Sky alerted UCI and Benson confirmed that that is what he was told.

Which doesn't quite make sense either, actually.

Edit:

Here it is:

Daniel Benson ‏@dnlbenson Mar 19
UCI tell CN they were informed about Henao recently, as in the last few days. Say JTL case is ongoing.

@dnlbenson were they informed by sky or Ada?

Daniel Benson ‏@dnlbenson Mar 19
Sky

 

[neineinei]

The riders have access to their own testing data throug ADAMS. (It is described in WADA's Report of the independent observers TdF 2010) The teams can probably require access to the same data if they demand so in the riders contract. If Sky have access to the ABP data and compared it to data from internal team testing something might have stood out which didn't stand out from only the ABP data available to UCI, or the data just wasn't suspicious enough for it to be flagged (yet) for a person from UCI's ABP program to actually look at it.

The IO Team observed that the ABP data is made available on ADAMS within a short period after the analysis is completed. The aim of this is to allow the testing authority to react rapidly when an atypical and/or abnormal result is received. However, in referring to the Guidelines for Biological Passport programme there is no mention about the actual time to report this data.
Also the WADA Guidelines specify that data from the ABP should be available on ADAMS with access to both the anti-doping organisation and the rider concerned.

The IO Team’s understanding of the Guidelines is that data does not necessarily need to be available to both parties (ie. the anti-doping organisation and the rider) immediately after the analysis is completed. The data could be sent to the UCI first followed by the recommendation from the APMU which the UCI could then act upon and conducted a target test of the rider if there are suspicions. When sufficient time has passed and if needed, a follow up test conducted, the data could then be released on ADAMS, with access to the rider concerned. This would minimise the possibility of riders being aware of possible follow up testing and/or then having the ability to manipulate their blood profiles after accessing such data and before a follow up sample can be collected.

“In talking about Armstrong, Pat McQuaid said that the programme didn’t flag any abnormal results. That is right, in a sense, but subsequent to that there were quite a few abnormal results. They may not have necessarily been flagged by the software, but the problem with this approach is that it is not always about crossing these lower and higher thresholds…it is about someone looking and seeing a pattern,” he said.

“I for one hope that all of that has changed and that the people who are reviewing which profiles need to be evaluated by the panel are actually looking at the data rather than just running it through the programme.

“The reason is that a lot of suspect profiles might not actually trigger those thresholds. However if you look at them, you think, ‘there is something not quite right here.’ I have seen quite a few.”

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ers-published-biological-passport-values.aspx

 

[RiccoDinko]

Wouldn't it be more prudent for the UCI to spend millions on increased testing, instead of investigating the 90s, listening to all the worms.

 

[MarkvW]

Wouldn't it be more prudent for the UCI to spend millions on increased testing, instead of investigating the 90s, listening to all the worms.

It depends upon how serious the UCI is. [Laughing].

If the UCI wants to root out filthy owners and DSs, then looking at the 90s is definitely the way to go. [Mount Everest-sized "if."] Getting rid of those scumbags [the heart of the sport] can only be accomplished by giving immunity to the riders.

If the UCI is giving immunity to team management, then the whole investigation is a joke. [Did you expect anything else?]

Some riders will always cheat to obtain an advantage, even if it kills them. Clean team support, from the ownership on down through DS and soigneur is the only hope for a clean cycling future. [In other words, there is no hope.]

 

[DirtyWorks]

Yes, riders can request their data.

WADA is not involved in this. The UCI runs the biopassport so this is a UCI test. Granted the sample collection is often taken by the local WADA signatory but the results management is done by the UCI.

For years the UCI would not even share their BioPassport testing results with WADA, but I understand that changed last year

Yes, WADA is not involved in this test or other tests. They don't work at that level. I re-read some WADA docs and my understanding is the data is available to athletes via ADAMS.

My understanding based on the Fran message from the twitterer is the national federation was the anti-doping authority that requested the test. They would be the ones that would open a case if they so desired.

I'm reminded of the contrasting Bauge positive. The UCI came in much later with their opinion the FCF's sanction wasn't sufficient. Since this is the UCI, Bauge's case was so important a tougher sanction was pursued while there is zero interest in this rider's test results. The inconsistency enables doping.

neineinei,

Regarding Sky running tests parallel to WADA's would be incredibly expensive so I very seriously doubt it is happening. Regarding the values of an unknown test in some way tripping a positive or near-positive suspicious, the UCI and national federations ignore plenty of those. Armstrong, Horner. They even tried ignoring a straight-up positive from Contador.

Finally, there's nothing in the WADA code that says a federation has to open a case on a positive. So, positives can happen and never be sanctioned.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Wouldn't it be more prudent for the UCI to spend millions on increased testing, instead of investigating the 90s, listening to all the worms.

They don't have to increase testing. They could grant NADO's the authority to open cases. Of course, that would very likely trigger huge waves of positives.

There are two main reasons for the passport system.
1. not kill riders doping. Which, had happened in the past.
2. Better manage doping controversy.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

It depends upon how serious the UCI is. [Laughing].

If the UCI wants to root out filthy owners and DSs, then looking at the 90s is definitely the way to go. [Mount Everest-sized "if."] Getting rid of those scumbags [the heart of the sport] can only be accomplished by giving immunity to the riders.

If the UCI is giving immunity to team management, then the whole investigation is a joke. [Did you expect anything else?]

Some riders will always cheat to obtain an advantage, even if it kills them. Clean team support, from the ownership on down through DS and soigneur is the only hope for a clean cycling future. [In other words, there is no hope.]

Reluctantly agree.

Until it is criminalized. Then the shift will occur, not completely but fines and jail will start to take their toll.